Review and Herald, Vol. 51, No. 14. (4/4/1878)

Review and Herald

Apr 4, 1878

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 4, 1878

THOUGHTS ON BAPTISM.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

(Continued.)

SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.—CONTINUED.

It remains to notice but one more line of argument on this subject. It is that of the baptism of households. The texts referring to such instances are few in number, and require but little time or space in this examination.

1. The house of Lydia. Acts 16:13–15. In this case there is such general consent of pedo-baptist authors that there were no infants in the household, that it is unnecessary to add words to their admissions. Thus Dr. Clarke:—

“She attended unto the things; she believed them, and received them as the doctrines of God; and in this faith she was joined by her whole family; and in it they were all baptized.”

Lydia was nearly three hundred miles from Thyatira, by sea and land, doing business in Philippi. That there were children in her household, or that she had a husband, is not stated in the text. Certain it is that all her household were believers, and verse 40 strongly intimates that they were “brethren;” for there is no account of any other believers there at that time except those of the house of the jailer, whose house Paul and Silas left to go to that of Lydia, where they saw the brethren before they departed from the city.

2. The house of the jailer. Acts 16:31–34. On this text there is very slight chance for controversy. They preached to him and to all that were in his house; and all were baptized. And he “rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.” This is both plain and positive. Dr. Clarke says:—

“It appears that he and his whole family, who were capable of receiving instructions, embraced this doctrine, and showed the sincerity of their faith by immediately receiving baptism.”

But the scripture says they who thus were instructed, and believed, were “all his house;” yet in the face of this declaration the Doctor thinks the inference is allowable that “all his” included his infant also! What an inference.

3. The household of Stephanas. 1 Cor. 1:16. Paul says, “I baptized also the household of Stephanas.” In chap. 16:15 he speaks again of them thus: “Ye know the house of Stephanas, . . . that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.”

That being the case, no one will dispute that they were all proper subjects of baptism. All had manifested a personal interest in the work of the gospel.

Another text may well be noticed in this connection, which, though it does not speak of baptism, gives further evidence on the use of the term house. Acts 18:8 says, “Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house.” Paul says he baptized Crispus, but does not speak of baptizing his household; but doubtless they were all baptized, for his words prove that they were all proper subjects of baptism, all being believers.

In the case of the jailer it is expressly stated that they spoke the word of the Lord “to all that were in his house,” and that he believed, “with all his house.” Dr. Clarke, on this text, as above quoted, says: “All who were capable of receiving instructions, embraced this doctrine.” Granting what the Doctor infers, though it is not in proof, that there were some in the house too young to receive instructions in the doctrines of the gospel, it follows that the expressions, “all his house” and “all that were in his house,” do not include these little ones. But what, then, do they gain for infant baptism, by inferring the presence of infantile members of the household? The commission, and its fulfillment in Acts 2, &c., confine baptism to those who believe the gospel and repent of their sins. If (as Dr. Clarke claims, and with him all who infer infant membership in the households), the believing of a household does not include the younger members who cannot receive instruction, does not the baptizing of a household, under the commission, exclude the younger members who are unable to exercise the faith required in the commission? Or, in brief, if there may be unbelieving infants in a believing household, may there not also be unbaptized infants in a baptized household? And if not, why not? We do not ask that such an exception shall be made. We are willing to accept the statement as it stands in the sacred record, that all the household heard, all believed, and all were baptized. They who claim that there were infants of days in the households, find a necessity for exceptions to the general statements that the whole households believed. If the exceptions exist, then we claim, on the authority of the commission, that they extend to baptism as well as to faith; for unbelievers were never required to be baptized.

We will give a brief summary of the points in evidence on this subject.

1. Baptism does not take the place of circumcision; and therefore it is not allowable to argue from circumcision in the Old Testament to baptism in the New, as is so frequently done.

2. Preaching the word comes before baptism; a candidate for the ordinance must first understand his relation to the divine government, as a sinner.

3. Faith comes before baptism, according to the terms of the great commission. We must have faith in the name of Christ before we can be baptized into his name.

4. Repentance comes before baptism. This also is in the order laid down by Inspiration. As baptism is for the remission of sin, and is the pledge of a new life, repentance is necessary; for without this there can be no assurance of future obedience.

5. The same is shown further in that baptism is a burial; and death precedes burial. This death is a death to sin; but there is no death to sin without conviction by the law of God, and repentance. Without these there is no walking in “newness of life.”

6. Baptism is commanded, and the commandment requires obedience on the part of all who can understand a precept. No others can obey it.

7. Baptism is not a blessing which may be received without volition or obedience. To regard it as a privilege merely, and not as a precept, lays the foundation for gross errors concerning baptismal regeneration, and its necessary counterpart, the destruction of all unbaptized infants.

8. Baptism is related to remission of sin; it belongs to a remedial system, and is to be obeyed by all those who have sins to be remitted. It applies to no others.

9. Baptism is not for “original sin.” The sin of Adam brings no condemnation to his children, and baptism does not stand related to it. The gospel does not save anybody from that death which we inherit from Adam. Exceptions do not destroy the truth that “in Adam all die.” We all inherit mortality from him, but not condemnation. But the gospel saves from the second death, the penalty for personal sin.

10. Baptism does not remove natural depravity, in any case. In this respect baptized infants are no better than others. It has no power to impart “a higher life to the soul;” it is not “a saving ordinance” in any such sense. Adults are not freed from their fallen natures in baptism, but have to overcome, even to the end. Christian life is a warfare with self.

11. Infants are brought from the dead by the great Lifegiver, and die no more because they have no sin for which to answer. They are not saved by repentance, faith, and the remission of sin. The first two they could not exercise; the last they did not need.

12. In every instance recorded in the New Testament the preaching of the word preceded baptism, and they who gladly received the word were baptized.

13. The term “children” does not necessarily refer to infants, nor even to young people; and never refers to infants where duty is enjoined, as in Acts 2:38, 39, and Eph. 6:1.

14. The baptism of households affords no evidence in favor of infant baptism. While there is nothing in the statements from which an inference may justly be drawn in favor of infant baptism, a conclusion against it is justly drawn from the statements in regard to the faith and labors of the households.

An inference, to be admissible, must have the probabilities in its favor; but in this case the probabilities are decidedly against any just inference for infant baptism. The terms of the commission, the records of its fulfillment, the relations and conditions of baptism,—all lead to a conclusion against it; and the records of household baptisms are such as to shut out such an inference. An inference is necessary only when nothing else can reasonably be drawn from the text; which is not the case in any of the inferences in favor of infant baptism. And an unnecessary inference is worthless, and should not, for a moment, be entertained where questions of duty are involved.

The power of the truth in its simplicity, unalloyed by the theories of the wisdom of the world, is shown in the following incident which we copy from the Biography of Dr. Carson:—

“In the year 1807, James Haldane, after having sprinkled an infant, was accosted by his little son, a child six years of age, with the pertinent question, ‘Father, did that child believe?’ ‘No,’ said the surprised parent, ‘why do you ask me such a question?’ ‘Because, father, I have read the whole of the New Testament, and I find that all who were baptized believed. Did the child believe?’ It was enough. God’s simple truth, which had been hidden from the wise and prudent, was revealed to the babe. The strange question, ‘Did the child believe?’ haunted the mind of that father, until, after a thorough examination, he renounced his former errors, and was publicly immersed. His brother Robert soon followed his example. Whole churches saw the light of this ordinance flashing upon them; and thousands of the most devoted men of Scotland, who had taken the Bible as their sole directory, reformed their ‘Tabernacle Reformation,’ and followed the Lord fully.”

If left free from the glosses of “theology” and the obscurities of tradition, every one could find what that child found in the New Testament; that they who believed—who “gladly received the word”—were baptized. The conditions of the ordinance, the terms in which the duty is set forth, exclude all beside penitents and believers.

Though our examination of this branch of the subject has been somewhat brief, we trust such evidences have been presented as will lead the mind, unavoidably, to the truthful conclusion. We now pass from it to examine

THE ORDER OF BAPTISM.

If there is one part of the doctrine of baptism of more vital importance than another, we have that part now presented before us. We say if, for we do not wish thus to discriminate where every part is important, and where all is of divine authority. But this point is most intimately related to the most vital parts of Christian life.

Baptism has its form. Of this no active duty can be destitute. Paul thanked God that his brethren had “obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine” which was delivered unto them; and this was spoken in connection with an argument relating to baptism. To change the form is to change the thing itself. It is not strictly correct to speak of “the mode of baptism,” though we often use the expression to conform to the common forms of thought on this subject. Baptism is neither more nor less than immersion; and “the mode of immersion” is an awkward expression.

Baptism has its subjects. To destroy the distinction of character in the subjects, and administer it to all without discrimination, would entirely destroy the ordinance as an institution for the followers of Christ. Therefore, it is necessary strictly to keep within the bounds of the teachings of the Scriptures as to the subjects of baptism, lest we pervert the ordinance and make it merely a means to minister to our own feelings. If we pervert it to such uses, we make it our own institution, and it is thenceforth no more the institution of our Lord.

Baptism has its order. There is a time in the experience of an individual when it may properly be administered; outside of that order it is not the institution of the gospel.

We heard a person once remark that his charity was of the largest kind: he could fellowship every one who was baptized in the name of Christ. Now this expression is very liable to be misunderstood. Not every one who is immersed in water, even after the formula given by the Saviour, is baptized in the name of Christ according to the Scripture meaning of the phrase. A hypocrite, destitute of faith and godliness, may be so immersed; yet he has not been baptized within the intention of the ordinance. The necessary conditions of the rite have not been complied with in such a case. We cannot subscribe to the sentiment of learned advocates of the baptism of non-believers, that the benefit of baptism is not lost because of the indisposition of the receiver.

There is another expression not so liable to be misconstrued as that of being baptized in the name of Christ; that is, being baptized into the death of Christ. This is necessary to Christian baptism. If this is complied with, the ordinance is administered according to its true intent.

We are very far from allowing that there is the shadow of a conflict between these two expressions. We insist that the truth is found in the harmony of Scripture testimony. When we have all that the Scriptures say on a given point, then we have the whole truth on that point. And we are free to express our opinion that if the original were more uniformly translated, and rendered into his name, as it is rendered into his death, the meaning would be more apparent to the general reader.

Paul takes up this subject in his letter to the Romans, and carries it out very thoroughly. His premises and conclusions are so clearly set forth that the expositor has little to do more than to trace the line of his argument.

There were some in the days of the apostle who had such erroneous views of the gospel as to think it allowable to do evil if the result was good! This idea has never been eradicated from the professed church of Christ. It has led into a multitude of false doctrines and wrong practices, and introduced into the church what are commonly known as “pious frauds.” According to this view, traditions and doctrines not found in the Bible, may be safely followed if they have a “pious use;” and long-established errors must be let alone for fear of weakening somebody’s faith in Christianity. But Christianity is never benefited by compromises with error, under any pretense whatever.

Said Paul, “The law entered that the offense might abound.” Rom. 5:20. Not that sin is increased by the law; but, as he said in chap. 7:13, “that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.” The sinfulness of sin is increased by the increase of light. This effect was produced in the giving of the law; for “by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Rom. 3:20.

Again the apostle says, “For until the law sin was in the world.” This means until the law was delivered on Mount Sinai, as is shown by this reference, “Death reigned from Adam to Moses.” Rom. 5:13, 14. It has no reference to the origin of the law at that time, as some assume; for he adds, “But sin is not imputed when there is no law.” As by the law is the knowledge of sin, no one can be proved guilty in the absence of law. And if man’s knowledge of the law is imperfect, his ideas of sin will be imperfect. Thus is shown the meaning of the expression, “That sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.” The law does not really increase sin, more than the mirror increases the defilement of the person. It only makes the defilement manifest. It is in this sense that the law entered that the offense might abound; or, as it is expressed again in chap. 7:13, “But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good,” that is, by the law. In the same connection the apostle says the law is not death; it does not create sin. It proves the sinful nature of sin; it brings death where sin actually exists, and nowhere else.

As there is no guilt, or imputation of sin, where there is no law, so no law will prove a person guilty but that law which he has transgressed. We would not take that law which forbids blasphemy to prove a man guilty of theft. Hence that law which entered that the offense might abound or appear sin was the law which had been transgressed . It was not the making, but the renewing of the law, which took place at that time.

But where sin abounded grace did much more abound. Sin called for a special manifestation of grace, and this came through the Son of God. And as God is glorified in his Son, the question is raised, “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” Some say, “Yes, we frustrate grace if we keep the law; we restrain the fullness of the gospel and thereby dishonor Christ.” Many to this day reason thus. But Paul gives the question a decided negative; he says, “God forbid. How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein?” Life and death are opposites. If we are living in sin, we are surely not dead to it; it is impossible to be dead to sin and to live in sin at the same time. And he gives a demonstration of this death to sin: “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death.” This ought to be conclusive to every one. If we were not dead to sin, why were we buried? The proper time for burial is after death, not before death. The proper time for burial in baptism is when we die to sin—to the transgression of the law; for “sin is the transgression of the law.” But they who still live in violation of the law could not have been buried in this order. They were buried alive; “the body of sin” was not destroyed; the “old man” in them still lives. This is what is plainly taught in Rom. 6.

(To be Continued.)

A BIRD'S MINISTRY.

From his home in an Eastern bungalow, In sight of the everlasting snow, Of the grand Himalayas, row on row,

Thus wrote my friend:— “I had traveled far, From the Afghan towers of Candahar, Through the sand-white plains of Sinde-Sagar;

“And once, when the daily march was o’er, As tired I sat in my tented door, Hope failed me, as never it failed before.

“In swarming city, at wayside fane, By the Indus’ bank, on the scorching plain, I had taught,—and my teaching all seemed vain.

“‘No glimmer of light [I sighed] appears: The Moslem’s Fate and the Buddhist’s fears Have gloomed their worship this thousand years.

“‘For Christ and his truth I stand alone In the midst of millions; a sand-grain blown Against yon temple of ancient stone

“‘“As soon may level it!” Faith forsook! My soul, as I turned on the pile to look: Then rising my saddened way I took

“To its lofty roof for the cooler air; I gazed and marveled; how crumbled were The walls I had deemed so firm and fair!

“For, wedged in a rift of massive stone, Most plainly rent by its roots alone, A beautiful peepul-tree had grown;

“Whose gradual stress would still expand The crevice, and topple upon the sand The temple, while o’er its wreck should stand

“The tree in its living verdure!—Who Could compass the thought?—The bird that flew Hitherward, dropping a seed that grew,

“Did more to shiver this ancient wall Than earthquake, war, simoom,—or all The centuries in their lapse and fall!

“Then I knelt by the riven granite there, And my soul shook off its weight of care, As my voice rose clear on the tropic air:—

“‘The living seeds I have dropped remain In the cleft: Lord, quicken with dew and rain, Then temple and mosque shall be rent in twain.’”

—Sel.

IS THE HEART RIGHT?

By H. F. Cottrell

This truly is the great question; for “God looketh on the heart,” not on the “outward appearance.” A person may appear to men to be righteous, when the heart is not right in the sight of God; but in the soon-coming day “God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ.” It is the hidden motive of the heart that weighs in God’s account. Evil men may constrain themselves to do right actions to be seen and praised of men; but the veil of hypocrisy cannot hide the heart from the omniscient Judge. But upon this great truth, that God judges from the secret motives of the heart, Satan has constructed a sophistical argument by which thousands are being deceived to their eternal ruin. All are inclined to think favorably of their own heart; and from the fact that God knows the heart, and judges accordingly, they infer that all will be well, though they are not very particular as to outward acts and observances. “These amount to nothing,” they say, “God looks upon the heart; and God knows my heart, that I want to be saved.”

My friend, you may desire life, and yet not love the way that leads to life. We may all learn this truth if we will, that though outward acts of obedience can avail us nothing unless the heart is right, yet it is vain to imagine that the heart can be right, while there is not a willing obedience to all the outward acts required in the revealed will of God. The heart cannot be right with God, while we are unwilling to obey him; and to obey him we must do just what he says, and not offer him a substitute for what he has commanded.

Our duty is made plain in the word of God. To say it is not, is to impeach its author. If the reader cannot understand what I am saying in this article, the fault is either in my expression or in his education. The fault may be mine; for I am not infallible. But when men, out of charity falsely so-called, look with complacency upon the conflicting creeds of men, all said to be founded upon the revelation which God has given, and say that each and every way will do if the heart is only right, they derogate from the character of that revelation, while they do not benefit men, but only aid them in their self-deception, and encourage them in the way to ruin. And yet it is thought to be a real virtue to say of outward acts of obedience, “It is non-essential; one way is as acceptable as another, if the heart is only right.” You may be sprinkled, poured, immersed, or not baptized at all, if the heart is only right. You may keep the Sabbath on which God rested, which he sanctified and commanded to be kept holy, or the one that the doctrines and commandments of men have put in its place, or you may take the ground that there is no Sabbath in this dispensation, if the heart is only right.

The question came up yesterday in Sabbath-school, Why were Abel and his offering accepted of God? The answer was, Because Abel’s heart was right; and the evidence that his heart was right was, that he did just what God had instructed him to do. “He obtained witness that he was righteous,” or that God accepted and pardoned, “God testifying of his gifts.” He had the testimony of God concerning his bloody sacrifice, which typified the promised Christ; and doing exactly according to his instruction he was accepted. Cain’s substitute was not accepted, though it may have been fully equal in value to Abel’s offering, or even have exceeded it.

“Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.” But he did something more than to say he believed. “Faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect.” And God commended Abraham, “Because,” said he, “that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” Gen. 26:5. He did the very things which God required. On the contrary, Saul, when sent to destroy utterly the Amalekites and all that they had, their cattle and all their beasts being specified, took the liberty to vary a little from his instructions by saving alive some of the best of the sheep and oxen, and that for the pious reason of offering them in sacrifice to God. He may have fancied that his heart was right; and that a trifling variation from the strict letter of his instructions was a matter of no essential importance. But what was the word of the Lord to him? “Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams;” and “Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee.” Neglect to obey the revealed will of the Lord is proof positive that the heart is not right with God.

Reader, “keep thy heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life.” The Spirit has testified, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Said Jesus, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in Heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

Many, our Lord assures us, will come to that fearful moment to be undeceived too late. What shall be done to avert so terrible a fate? When Jesus was asked the way to eternal life, he replied, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” See Matt. 19:16-19. He referred the inquirer to the ten commandments, repeating five of them. As recorded by another witness, he said, “Thou knowest the commandments.” Dear reader, we also know them; and we know that the same moral code says, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” We have the Bible, containing the will of God; and having also all the advancing light which beams from that word in these latter days of the nineteenth century, we have no excuse for longer following the dictates of a fallen church instead of the law of our God. Do not, I beseech you, let Satan deceive you with the glaring sophistry that the heart can be right with God, while you are living in disobedience to his known requirements. “Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous.” Right acts may be performed while the heart is wrong; but it is impossible for our heart to be right while we neglect to do a single thing which God commands.

H. F. COTTRELL

FORGIVENESS

By N. W. V.

“And be ye kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.” Eph. 4:32.

Then God himself, who is love, whose mercy endureth forever, is our example in forgiving one another. How sweet it is to do a favor to one who loves us, who is trying with his might to please us; but from divine example as well as precept we learn to do good to them that hate us. Matt. 5:44. Could we sing to eternity the glad song of redemption, if God had shut up his bowels of compassion, had withheld his Son, till our race were heartily sorry for their rebellion and had become thoroughly reformed? “But God commendeth his love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Rom. 5:8.

O reader, does God love with pity that offending friend or enemy, and will you hate him? Did Christ die for him, and will you do nothing to save him from the second death? If at Jesus’ coming you are received into his eternal kingdom, that person will either be your loving associate forever, or else, at the second resurrection, be doomed to the lake of fire. Will you not, then, tenderly confess to him your offenses against him? Will you not, if need be, suffer wrong? Will you not, possessing the spirit of Christ, constrained by his dying love, render good for evil?

Christ prayed for them that had nailed him to the tree. Stephen prayed for them that were stoning him to death. What a glorious host of prophets, apostles, and martyrs have labored and suffered even unto death for their cruel persecutors! Can we hope to share with them in their glory and triumph without having a part in their reproach and suffering? How long, how tenderly has God borne with us! If we would obtain mercy in the Judgment, which is already set, let us show mercy. May the blood of Jesus Christ cleanse us from hardness of heart, from all sin. May we be like Jesus. He has said, “Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.” “Blessed are the merciful; for they shall obtain mercy.”

N. W. V.

ARE YOU SLEEPING?

By S. M. Spicer

The following incident, related by Moody, has an impressive lesson for every parent:

“A father took his little child one Sabbath out into the fields and, it being a hot day, lay down under a beautiful shady tree, while the child ran about, gathering wild flowers and little blades of grass. At last the father fell asleep, and while he was sleeping the child wandered away. When he awoke, his first thought was, ‘Where is my child?’ He looked around, but could not see him. He shouted with all his strength, but heard only the echo of his own voice. He ran to a little hill, looked around, and shouted again. No response. He then went to a precipice at some distance, and looked down. There, upon the rocks and briars, lay the mangled form of his loved child. He rushed to the spot, took up the lifeless corpse, and clasping it to his bosom, accused himself of being the murderer of his child. While he was sleeping the child had wandered over the precipice.”

“Are you sleeping?” might well be asked of many a parent whose children are wandering over the wide plains of this sin-beset world. What heart would not be rent with anguish to look over the fearful precipice of ruin and behold the mangled form of a loved child? What father and mother would not tremble, did they know their child was walking upon a pathway bordering on such a dangerous precipice? Yet perhaps their eyes are closed in deep sleep, while the child, unwarned, is fast nearing the yawning chasm. When last they saw their innocent, happy one, it was sporting gaily, gathering the sweet flowers of pleasure, unacquainted with thorn or poisonous sting. How little do the parents realize the many dangers surrounding their child! How careless and negligent are they of the all-important responsibilities resting upon them!

Parents who design to be faithful often fail in duty because they are actually ignorant of the dangers which beset the young and inexperienced. But no parent should plead ignorance while he stands as guardian of the present and eternal interests of a human soul. He should not only know where his child is, but also know that no evil influence, no hidden enemy, lurks around his pathway. Where is my child? what are his surroundings? whither is he tending? will be the ever-recurring questions of the faithful, vigilant parent. But, alas! many a loving parent forgets the child as soon as it is out of sight—and many care not where their children are if they are only out of the way. The child sallies out from home at will, perhaps to pass the listless hours in the street, mingling with the motley crowd, seeking with them diversion, and following recklessly on to the various dens of vice and crime. What wonder if the unstained heart thus left to the power of the enemy should soon show the foul taint of corrupt association, be led step by step to the gambling room or the rum-shop, and, ere the sleeping parent awakes, even rush down the fearful precipice of shame and ruin!

Scarcely anything is so unfortunate for a child as to be left much of his time without proper employment, especially if he is permitted to spend the idle hours in the

promiscuous street throng. Anxious, toiling parent, with no time to look after your thoughtless, wayward child, do you know that he may be even now approaching the fearful, fatal chasm? Idle, dissipated father, are you blindly leading your own child directly down the awful steeps?

“Are you sleeping?” Vain, thoughtless mother, following the gay rounds of fashionable life, and leaving your little ones to the care, or rather company, of indifferent servants, the question is addressed to you. Do you ever dream what will be the character and destiny of those precious souls so sacredly committed to your trust? In the intoxication of worldly pleasure, can you thus forget the dear ties of nature,—parental affection and solicitude? No true mother can ignore the duty to watch most carefully over the physical and moral development of her tender offspring. No true mother can forsake her holy charge at home for the vain amusements of the popular social world; nor can she permit the destroyer to enter the home circle in the form of vicious company or the domestic wine-glass. Fearfully asleep must be that parent who can install the demon of intemperance in his own household, inviting his own and his neighbor’s children to the wine-flushed table of feasting. Could that father and mother awake, they would see the child, even with his first glass, already upon the dizzy verge of the precipice; a step or two more, and he may fall beyond the reach of help.

Are there Christian parents sleeping while their children, spell-bound with the fascinations of earth, have never heard of a better world, have never been taught to seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness? How fearful will be the awakening at last to inquire, “Where is my child?” What bitter anguish to the parent’s heart, if he hear from his lost one the wailing lamentation, “Oh that some one had warned me of my danger!” Oh that all sleeping parents would awake to a true sense of their responsibilities, and arouse to vigilance and anxious concern for the present and eternal welfare of their children!

S. M. SPICER.

A SAD CONDITION.

By Frank Starr

The poor man is to be pitied. Our sympathy is aroused at the sight of pinching poverty; and when individuals are found destitute of clothing even, our sympathy is greatly increased. If we should find a person, who, in addition to this state of destitution, was also blind, our pity would be still increased. If, to add to this, his bodily condition and his circumstances were such as to render him wretched and miserable, in what a deplorable state he would be.

Imagine said person to be talking of his riches, affirming that his goods were constantly increasing. Not realizing that he is blind, he tells of what he sees, and congratulates himself that he has such clear perception. He does not seem to realize that he is destitute of clothing; and, in short, he feels quite satisfied, and says he has need of nothing. Such an individual we would call a poor, blind lunatic.

In Rev. 3:14-18 we find a class of such individuals described; and we find by the unerring word of prophecy that the description applies to the last church, who, at some time in their experience, are found in this condition. Let us heed “the faithful and true Witness,” who has known the wants and conditions of all the churches from first to last, and “be zealous and repent.”

FRANK STARR.

KISSING AND CLEAVING.

By Evangelist

“Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clave unto her.” The kiss was good, but the cleaving was better. Orpah had enough affection for the old mother of her dead husband to give her a kiss; but she had not enough to quit her native land, and go with her to the land of God’s people. She could give what was cheap and easy; she was not ready to make the sacrifice that cost something.

In this pathetic little touch of human history, pictured to us in the matchless story of the Moabitish woman, we see a parable that illustrates thousands of experiences in our own days. To “salute” Christ by an act of public profession at his table is easy. It usually costs but little; for in these times it requires no great self-denial to join a Christian church. It may even be a popular step, and give one credit and currency in society. No “spoiling of goods,” no dungeon awaits a profession of Christianity in America, as it once did in Asia Minor and in Rome.

To the stereotyped question, “Do you love Jesus?” there are glib and ready answers often rendered that cost no more than Orpah’s kiss. They are about as worthless. A friend tells us that he lately visited a young man who had attempted to commit suicide, and he was shocked to hear the youth affirm with the most careless presumption that “he loved Jesus Christ.” The same exhibitions of hollow sentimentalism are often made in prayer-meetings, or before examining boards of churches. The “kiss” of profession is so easily given—it is so grateful to self-esteem—that the shallow-hearted indulge in it without a scruple or a blush. In a little while these Orpahs are missed from the prayer-room and the communion table; they are off to their old companionship and “their own gods.” They go out from Christ, because they were never of him, for if they had been of him they would have continued with him.

It cost something for Ruth to cleave unto Naomi. We always feel glad that she could not have foreseen the handsome estate and the rich kinsman that were waiting for her at Bethlehem; for that would have subjected her to the suspicion of selfish motives in her choice. She acted from principle, and with no hope of earthly reward. “Thy people shall be my people, and thy God shall be my God,” was a noble confession of faith. The beauty of it lay in the fact that she carried it out, and took the decisive steps that showed her heart and conscience were in what she said.

The glowing excitements of a revival commonly fill up our church memberships with not a few Orpahs among the genuine godly-minded Ruths. In a little while the Orpahs are back in the world again, to their own sin and the church’s sorrow. Profession is easy; then comes the test of performance. Revivals cover the threshing floor with sheaves. The duller and more monotonous seasons that come afterwards winnow out the wheat from the chaff. In this solemn and significant fact lies the reason why, with all the occasional large ingatherings, the actual working force of Christians increases so slowly.

The enlistments, the dress-parades, have no hardships in them. The bivouacs and battles are the real test of the mettle. An equally good one is to be willing to lie wounded in the hospital without complaining. Christ puts his professed disciples to the test very soon. Those cleave to him, and those only, who have a vital union to him by faith and the regenerating Spirit. Cleaving costs the sacrifice of pride in one, and the sacrifice of ease and comfort in another, of stubborn self-will in a third. It often costs a sharp battle with unruly appetites and lusts. It was of this persistent hold to him, this patient continuance in right doing, that Jesus spake when he said, “Abide in me.” The branches that cleave unto the vine bear the rich clusters. Godly living depends upon this one thing—heart-cleaving unto Christ.

Holiness means the daily doing of his will, the daily keeping of his commandments. The religion we want nowadays is the religion that is fast-anchored enough to stand the strain of strong temptations in the counting-room, the shop, the political meeting, the social circle, as well as in the church and the closet. Cleaving to Jesus holds a man anywhere. Of such the dear Master says, “None shall be able to pluck them out of my hands.” Jesus was once betrayed with a kiss. But Jesus will never betray the humblest follower who cleaves to him in simple faith, and the daily doing of his commandments.—Evangelist.

Continue reading: The World’s Navies and Armies